THE MIRANDA DOCTRINE

Submitted to: Atty. Ulpiano Ulan Sarmiento III

Submitted by: Ong, David Bryan Torres, Justin Yumang, Cyndymhae Section 1- G

THE MIRANDA DOCTRINE

INTRODUCTION

We often see in TV shows and movies that immediately upon arresting a person, the police officer will say, You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you at government expense before any questions, if you wish. You can decide at any time to exercise these rights and not answer any questions or make any statements. We wonder if these are just from the brilliant writing of the writer, but no, these statements are collectively known as the Miranda warning.

Before the promulgation of the Miranda Doctrine in 1966, a person can be arrested without these statements of the arresting officer leaving the arrested person unaware of his rights. A number of cases were tried by different courts of law permitting evidences of written confessions of the suspects made through police interrogation and without the presence of an attorney. These practices were abolished when the ruling on Miranda v. Arizona was implemented.

The Supreme Court of the United States decision in Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room

in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial.

In Miranda v. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnaping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the

Supreme Court of Arizona held that Mirandas constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.1

In Vignera v. New York, Michael Vignera was picked up by New York police in connection with the robbery of a dress shop that had occurred three days prior. He was first taken to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters. He was then taken to the 66th Detective Squad, where he orally admitted the robbery and was place under formal arrest. He was then taken to the 70th Precinct for detention, where he was questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and answers. At trial, the oral confession and the transcript were presented to the jury. Vignera was found guilty of first degree

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

robbery and sentenced to 30-60 years imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed without opinion by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals.2

In Westover v. United States: Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies and taken to a local police station. A report was also received from the FBI that Westover was wanted on a felony charge in California. Westover was interrogated the night of the arrest and the next morning by local police. Then, FBI agents continued the interrogation at the station. After 2 and one-half hours of interrogation by the FBI, Westover signed separate confessions, which had been prepared by one of the agents during the interrogation, to each of the two robberies in California. These

statements were introduced at trial. Westover was convicted of the California robberies and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on each count. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.3

In California v. Stewart: In the course of investigating a series of purse-snatch robberies in which one of the victims died of injuries inflicted by her assailant, Roy Allen Stewart was identified as the endorser of checks stolen in one of the robberies. Stewart was arrested at his home. Police also arrested Stewarts wife and three other people who were visiting him. Stewart was placed in a cell, and, over the next five days, was interrogated on nine different occasions. During the ninth interrogation session, Stewart stated that he had robbed the deceased, but had not meant to hurt her. At that time, police released the four other people arrested with Stewart because there was no evidence to connect any of them with the crime. At trial, Stewarts
2 3

Ibid. Ibid.

statements were introduced. Stewart was convicted of robbery and first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of California reversed, holding that Stewart should have been advised of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. 4

The issue in these cases is whether statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself are necessary.

The Supreme Court held that there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves. As such, the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.

The Supreme Court further held that without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individuals will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely. Therefore, a defendant must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of

Ibid.

law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.5

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda, reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover, and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in Stewart.

This landmark case changed American Justice by strengthening the protection of a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination during police interrogation. Furthermore, such change in American judicial system extensively reached and influenced other judicial systems in the world, including the Philippines.

MIRANDA RIGHTS

The Miranda rights are available only during the stage of custodial investigation. Custodial investigation is defined by the Supreme Court as one which involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends

Ibid.

itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate.6 This includes the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any violation of law.7

To remain silent

The right to remain silent is a fundamental principle of liberty. The accuser has the burden to build a case against a person, if the accuser fails on this point, the accused must be set free. The accused is not required to provide any evidence or testimony to prove his guilt.8 Thus, avoiding self-incriminating statements.

If the suspect refuses to give a statement, adverse inference shall be made from his refusal to answer questionsthis is based upon the presumption that the party who controls the evidence would have produced it, if it had been supportive of his/her position.9

However, if the accused, at his own will, begins cooperating with law enforcement authorities and answers questions, he or she gives up the right to remain silent and must continue to cooperate throughout his or her arrest, trial, and judgment.10

6 7

People vs. Marra, 236 SCRA 565 (1994) RA 7438 sec. 2(f), par. 2 8 Bill Rounds, You Have The Right To Remain Silent: Fifth Amendment Explained, LewRockwell.com (2010), http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/rounds4.1.1.html (accessed March 20, 2013). 9 Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference (accessed March 21, 2013) 10 Raffel vs. U.S., 271 U.S. 494 (1926)

To competent and independent counsel (preferably of his own choice)

The constitution is crystal clear that any person under investigation must be assisted by counselthis is one of the most important and cherished rights available to an accused, so as to prevent him/her to make self-incriminating statements.11 This right is available at all stages of the investigation.12 If he has no means to procure the services of counsel he must be provided (by the government) with one.13

A competent and independent counsel must be willing to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital of the individuals constitutional rights. 14 A counsel de officio who fails to genuinely protect the interests of the accused is invalid and unacceptable.15

To be informed of such rights

This right contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. This implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain, and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding of what is conveyed. Short of this, there is a denial of the right, as it cannot truly be said that the person has been informed of his rights.16

11 12

Gamboa vs. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 (1988) People vs. Hassan 157 SCRA 261 (1988) 13 RA 7438 sec. 2(b) 14 People vs. Bagnate, G.R. No. 133685-86 (May 20, 2004) citing People vs. Porio, G.R. No. 117202 (February 13, 2002) 15 People vs Bermas, G.R. No. 120420 (April 21, 1999) 16 People vs. nicandro 141 scra 289 (1986)

The burden lies on the prosecution to show that the accused understood what he read, and that he understood the consequences of his action in relation to his rights.17 In summary, it is comprehension that is sought to be obtained on the part of the accused and not merely the narration of such information on the part of the law enforcement authority.18

Rights cannot be waived except in writing and signed by the person in the presence of his counsel

The law provides that any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latters absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.19

No torture. Force, etc., which vitiates the free will shall be used; Secret detention places, etc., are prohibited

The inclusion of this statement in the rights of an accused during custodial investigation gives further emphasis on the proper manner of eliciting statements and evidences by the law enforcers. It gives ample protection to the accused to ensure that there will be no danger to his life and limb during such critical stage of interrogation. This categorically excludes any coercive,

17 18

People vs. Canela 208 SCRA 842 (1992) People vs. Agustin 240 SCRA 541 (1995) 19 R.A. 7438 Sec. 2(d)

intimidating or threatening force that might be used to coerce an accused of making admissions, whether they be true or not.

However, according to jurisprudence, what the constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort testimony from the accused, but this does not exclude the inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material.20

Confessions/admissions obtained in violation of rights are inadmissible in evidence The rights guaranteed by this provision refer to testimonial compulsion only. 21 There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced confession namely (1) coerced confessions, the product of torture, force, violence, threat and intimidation, and (2) uncounselled statements given without the benefit of the Miranda warning.22

Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to the spontaneous statements not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally admitted having committed the crime.23

The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation among private individuals, instead governs the relationship between the State and the individual. The prohibitions therein

20

Gutang vs. People, G.R. No. 135406 (July 11, 2000) People vs. Paynor 261 SCRA 615 (1996) People vs. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656 (May 9, 2002) 23 People vs. Andan, G.R. No. 116437, 269 SCRA 45 (March 3, 1997), People vs. Dy, G.R. No. 74517 (February 23, 1988), People vs. Guillermo, G.R. No. 147786 (January 20, 2004)
21 22

are primarily addressed to the State and its agents; hence, confessions to the media are likewise not part of custodial investigation.24

Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible in evidence against him. This rule is known as the exclusionary rule, which is based on the presumption that the defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through menacing police interrogation procedures where the potentially for compulsion, physical and psychological, is forcefully apparent.25 In addition, the evidence derived from such confession is likewise inadmissible.26

Waiver

The right to remain silent and the right to counsel but not the right to be informed of these rights may be waivedthis will not be given legal effect unless it is in writing and made in the presence of counsel.27 Further, for the waiver to be valid, the accused must first be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same. The burden to prove that an accused waived such rights rests with the prosecution.28 However, this waiver does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the process, regardless whether he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements

24 25

269 SCRA 45 269 SCRA 45 26 People vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 (1995) 27 People vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985) 28 251 SCRA 293

IMPORTANCE OF MIRANDA DOCTRINE

At first glance, one may probably ask, why is there such a great emphasis on these rights? Why is the accused accorded such great blanket of protection notwithstanding the possibility of his involvement in a crime? The answer is pretty simple. The outcome of the investigation will have a great impact on the resolution of the case wherein the liberty of the accused is at stake. Furthermore, the highly intimidating atmosphere in a custodial interrogation cannot be said to be conducive to a spontaneous response from an accused.29 Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence.30 In other words, absent the Miranda Doctrine, a person is placed in a seemingly powerless position as compared to the law enforcement officers. This unequal position makes him vulnerable to the evil of extorting from the very mouth of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of an offense the very evidence with which to prosecute and thereafter convict him.31 This is not to say that our judicial system works in favor of the accused all the time, rather, this right has to be understood in such a way that our judicial system exerts utmost effort in making sure that no innocent man shall be deprived of his liberty.

The importance of the Miranda Doctrine cannot be undermined in the Philippine setting. In People v. Bolanos, 211 SCRA 262, the decision of the trial court was reversed in as much as the uncounselled confession of the accused was the sole basis for conviction. Also, in People v.

29 30

People v. Lugod, G.R. No. 136253 (February 21, 2001) People v. Holgado, 86 Phil 752 31 People v. Bonola, G.R. No. 116394 (June 19, 1997)

Peralta, the extra-judicial confession was held inadmissible for the lawyer merely affixed his signature to the confession as a witness and did not assist the accused during the custodial investigation. In People v. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289, The Supreme Court said that the right of the accused to be informed of his Miranda rights contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. The right to be informed should allow the suspect to consider the effects and consequences of any waiver he might make of his rights.32 These, along with a long list of cases decided by the Supreme Court, unequivocally proves the importance of strictly adhering to the Constitutional mandate regarding the Miranda Doctrine. For if it is not faithfully observed, evidences arising from such stage of custodial investigation will not be appreciated in any court of justice. Thus, law enforcers themselves might deter the rightful conviction of a guilty person.

In a democratic country like ours, the liberty of the people is given primary importance. As a nation, we have gone through several regimes that gave outright disrespect to the life and liberty of the people. We need not thoroughly review our history to realize that Filipinos do not look at such constitutional transgressions blindly. The very idea of improperly curtailing the constitutional rights makes people revolt from the inside out. Thus, everyone, especially those involved in law enforcement and administration of justice, must be extra careful and vigilant in protecting the rights of the people. While we all want justice to be served the soonest possible time, so as to accord the victim what is due him, and so as to send a message to the society that justice is always upheld, processes must still be observed. Our hasty desire to put offenders in

32

People v. Sabayoc, G.R. No. 147201 (January 15, 2004)

jail will never justify any transgression of the equally important and constitutionally protected Miranda Rights of the accused.